Cheney: Maybe we should limit size of pistol magazines

posted at 12:55 pm on January 19, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

To be fair, former VP Dick Cheney finally points out that the real proximate cause of the Tucson massacre was the insanity of the gunman, but that won’t be the takeaway for gun-control advocates. Cheney joins some critics in at least considering a size limitation on magazines for semi-automatic pistols. Jared Lee Loughner used a larger magazine of 33 rounds in the pistol, which has given rise to a call to impose limits on clips magazines for personal use:

However, Loughner had more magazines on him when arrested — including two standard 15-shot magazines:

Authorities in Tucson say the suspect in Saturday’s shooting had three more pistol magazines with him when he was tackled.

The Pima County sheriff’s office on Friday says an extended clip was found nearby and Jared Loughner had two more 15-round magazines in his pockets, though it doesn’t say if any of those were loaded.

Would a limitation on gun magazines have prevented the tragedy? Certainly Loughner would have fired the first 15 shots without any problem, and reloading may or may not have given him time to shoot another 15. Loughner prepared for a longer shooting spree, but was foiled when brave witnesses tackled and detained him. It’s difficult to determine whether Loughner had bullets in his gun at the time.

I don’t normally shoot semiautomatic pistols, so I have no personal insight on magazine size. Target shooting would be simplified with larger magazines, but for personal protection, fifteen bullets would suffice in most exigent circumstances. Certainly gun rights advocates will worry about slippery slopes in allowing magazine limitation laws to come into force, but Cheney notes that we have already had these with little impact on the practice of bearing guns. Would this be a common-sense reaction to the shootings in Tucson, or a useless measure that would limit law-abiding citizens and prevent nothing? I’m inclined to believe the latter.

Update: Several readers have objected to the use of the word “clip,” which I’ve changed to “magazine” throughout.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Personal protection doesn’t justify 33 bullet clips. Again, I don’t think they should be banned, but it seems the purpose of this clip is to inflict the most damage in the least amount of time.

Why make it?

OK, let’s look at what police use, since their job is to defend against criminals. The most popular police sidearm is a Glock 22, caliber .40 S&W, with a 16-round magazine. A typical police officer will have his sidearm loaded with one of these, possibly with an extra round in the chamber (17 rounds), plus two spare magazines in his belt, total of 49 rounds. So the round count is greater than the magazine you’re talking about as excessive.

Now, a citizen defending his home isn’t likely to be strapping on a gun belt with extra magazines (though I know some serious enough who plan to do exactly that), so they are pretty much going to have just whatever is in the handgun they grab when they hear a noise downstairs. In that case, it might make sense for someone to have a 33-round magazine just for such an occasion. Or it might not. Self-defense is very personal and the proper response varies tremendously depending on the person, his house, his neighborhood, availability of law enforcement, etc. Just because you can’t think of a reason to need it doesn’t mean that need doesn’t exist for someone else.

You have no bloody idea how fast a well-trained shooter can swap in fresh magazines. A matter of one to two seconds, if he’s an expert.

Apparently it took Loughner long enough to allow others to tackle him.

Your theory holds no water, because you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

KinleyArdal on January 19, 2011 at 1:09 PM

You’ll really have to do better than that.

You have no way of knowing that,

It’s pretty sound logic. He was tackled when he needed to reload. If he had needed to reload earlier, he would have been tackled earlier.

and there is no justification for restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens because “maybe” it will improve things.

How is it “restricting the right of law-abiding citizens” to purchase firearms, if the size of pistol magazines allows you to squeeze off 16 shots rather than 33? Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 33 consecutive shots with your pistol? If so, would you mind listing a few?

Limiting the size of the magazine will do nothing. I know people who can reload their pistol fast enough that it would only slow the shots fired by a couple or so. But if we are going to limit the size of the magazine maybe we should outlaw them all together. If the assumption is a smaller magazine = more lives saved then lets make the max size of 1 in the chamber and thats it. :rolleyes:

.22s, as others said, are very underpowered. However, they DO have plusses when used for defense. They are small, easily concealed, can hold more rounds in a similar-sized package, and rounds are literally cheaper than dirt.

Also, if you connect with a 22, especially multiple times, the slugs tend to bounce and richochet inside the body, actually capable of causing more damage. There’s almost zero recoil, so someone small can easily shoot it.

But most important, even a .22 satisfies the First Rule Of Gunfights: Bring a Gun! It’s better than being totally unarmed.

The reason he wasn’t able to shoot MORE people was because he was using the extended magazine. They are almost like a novelty item and are unwieldy and annoying to remove and replace. Its when he went to reload that he fumbled and was tackled. Had he just used the normal 15 round magazines, reloading would have taken under a second and the window to stop him would have been much smaller.

These dishonest scheming control freaks cannot be given any quarter. They have shown that they are liars and cheats at every turn, and could care less about the will of the taxpayer majority. They have trashed the Constitution and continue to laugh in the face of our good citizens. Obama is the cancer that is rotting the USA and his regime is in lockstep to disarm us at any cost. Then they let loose the hounds of communism and socialism. Not one concession we must continue to rid ourselves of democrat control. Let the states decide and these communist creeps can move.

A person shooting to kill/incapacitate an assailant in a public setting is likely panicked to all hell, and more than a little jittery with their shots. Best to make the first hit count, rather than count on deadeye aim in a crisis situation.

If you’re not a trained soldier, chances are you’re not going to be a terribly great shot at crunch time, especially if you’ve never had to shoot anyone before. .45 or 10MM or nothing.

If someone is attacking you, you don’t want to wound them. You want to kill them.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

The truth. I doubt that I’d ever forget having shot someone to death in a crisis, but I’d prefer that to wondering if he was gonna get another shot off after I was sure I’d dropped him with a shot to the knee or shoulder.

I’m not that familier with the Glock, however I heard that with the extended magazine, you have to hit the release then physically pull the magazine out of the pistol, that it won’t drop clear on it’s own.

evilned on January 19, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Depends on the design of the magazine.

Original Glock magazines weren’t “drop free,” that is if they were fully- or partially-loaded they would not drop free when the magazine release is tripped. This is because when loaded the sides of the magazine would bulge out slightly keeping the magazine from falling out of the pistol. They’d still drop free when fully unloaded (or if there were only one-two rounds left in there) but it made tactical reloads a bit of a headache.

Later “drop-free” designs fixed this by lining the magazine with metal that would prevent the bulging.

First, the crowd was armed. Several of the people who participated in taking him down were armed. Arizona is just as armed as Texas, maybe more so, since no licensing is required to carry concealed there.

Second, he was tackled while reloading. It isn’t clear if he was reloading because his magazine was empty, or from a malfunction, which is common with magazines that size in pistols. The pistol was designed for a magazine half that size, and it’s hard to get a spring that will compress with the right amount of force through the whole range.

I personally think that being tackled while reloading was a coincidence. He was spraying, not taking careful aim, and was probably through the clip in 4-7 seconds. That’s about the amount of time it takes to realize what is going on, identify who is doing it, and do something about it. If he had regular capacity clips, he might have emptied and been reloaded in those potential seven seconds, and had a fresh magazine and working firearm when they went to tackle him, making things much worse.

This is all shoulda-woulda-coulda based on limited guesswork and not a small amount of complete ignorance of how quick and dirty combat works.

Do-something disease run amok. The idea that creating more laws in direct response to a breaker of existing, related laws is intellectually deficient. By definition, they will not respect any new laws.

At what point does the meaning of “law breaking” enter their legislative solutions?

How is it “restricting the right of law-abiding citizens” to purchase firearms, if the size of pistol magazines allows you to squeeze off 16 shots rather than 33? Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 33 consecutive shots with your pistol? If so, would you mind listing a few?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Look, you need to listen to people who are familiar with firearms.

A practiced shooter can get off more rounds, probably more accurately, with standard magazines than this guy did with an extended magazine. It literally can take as little as a second to drop the empty magazine, reload and begin firing.

Anyone recognizing the shooter was reloading would be shot by the time they got to him.

The part that assumes limiting the size of a pistol magazine to under 33 rounds is an infringement of your 2nd amendment rights. Not every burden or restriction on gun ownership is a constitutional violation. If that were true, guns would be free and handed out on every street corner.

Really? If he had 15 shots instead of 33, he would have run out and been tackled SOONER. Did you ever take a statistics class? Think about the fact that maybe, just maybe, had he run out sooner, the man that bravely saw him out of ammo and reloading as he was exiting the store may’ve not been in that position had he already reloaded?

Seriously. How many people were wounded? How many were hit by the same bullet? How many shots actually hit someone? How many times in history has a lone gunman run around with an oversized magazine and did damage that we need to take this one example and change everything for everyone from this day forward? STOP with all the knee jerk reactions because of this psycho nutbag that didn’t know how to use the gun he had.

Liberalism sucks because all they do is sit around an play f’ing ‘what if’ games all day long. Step into reality, please.

It’s pretty sound logic. He was tackled when he needed to reload. If he had needed to reload earlier, he would have been tackled earlier.

You have no idea how much time was inbetween shots. You have no idea if the time between each shot would have been the same time as a skilled shooter would need to reload(which can be two seconds or less with practice). You have no idea if the magazine jammed and he was delayed in reloading. You are assuming so much, which is indicative of those who have no idea of how firearms work, and what happens in panic situations.

How is it “restricting the right of law-abiding citizens” to purchase firearms, if the size of pistol magazines allows you to squeeze off 16 shots rather than 33? Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 33 consecutive shots with your pistol? If so, would you mind listing a few?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Can you think of any lawful reasons to restrict people from having 30 or 50 round magazines? Isn’t each bullet deadly? Hell, by your logic, shouldn’t we be able to restrict magazines to five bullets or less? Shouldn’t we be able to restrict calibers? Why do we need .50AE? Why do we need .44 Magnum? You create the premise that the magazine size enabled the shooter to cause more havoc based only on a single incident where that was used. Cho Seung-Hui had no 33-round magazines but killed many more. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had no 33-round magazines but killed many more. You are using a single incident to argue to ban something that has been around for years without being any kind of catalyst in shooting sprees. Typical shortsighted liberal with zero knowledge of firearms.

but I don’t see the point in being able to purchase a 33 round magazine either. One really needs something like that for self-defense?
changer1701 on January 19, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Couldn’t the same argument be made for speed limits? Is there really a need to drive faster than 55 MPH? The government could simply mandate restrictor plates on all future vehicles, limiting their speed (and improving MPG as well). After all, the number of deaths from car accidents is far greater than that from firearms in America.

How is it “restricting the right of law-abiding citizens” to purchase firearms, if the size of pistol magazines allows you to squeeze off 16 shots rather than 33? Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 33 consecutive shots with your pistol? If so, would you mind listing a few?

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:08 PM

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

It’s called Incrementalism.

Ever time there is one of these incidents; the Oppressive-Left uses it to push for more restrictions on someone’s right to self-defense.

The restrictions don’t do anything, and it happens again. And the Oppressive-Left does it again – they know it won’t fix the problem and we know it won’t fix the problem.

They know they can’t take away that right in one fell swoop, but they can try to do it bit-by-bit.

Sheesh. Today you learned that they’re not the same and now you’re yelling at people about it.

Akzed on January 19, 2011 at 1:34 PM

I understand that you rarely know what you’re talking about, but really, most people here know I’ve been saying this for years on this site. If the best you can do is erroneously impugn my firearms knowledge, try again.

The issue I haven’t seen discussed yet is that the last AWB only ban civilian sales of new hi-capacity mags. The old ones are still around and number in the 6 or 7 figure range. All it does is raise the price.

The alternative is to make everyone turn them in and make possesion a crime. Is anyone here actually willing to make gun owners show up at the local PD and turn in firearms related anything that was legal when the bought it?

You can’t prevent the next Loughner from pulling a gun on a crowd. However, if you make access to firearms easier for the public, and if you encourage the public to carry concealed firearms, you can greatly decrease the body count when the next Loughner starts shooting. He won’t have to be tackled while reloading because he’ll be shot dead by then.

OhioCoastie on January 19, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Do not limit it to firearms. A person with a swords, dagger, butterfly knife, tazer, crowbar, or baseball bat may have been able to end the shooting spree after only a few shots had been fired.

Smaller number of bullets but of larger caliber and the Congresswoman would surely be dead. With practice, a magazine changeover takes no more than a second and this gunman was stopped when he couldn’t clear the overly long magazine from his pants. Such a limitation would have a lot less impact than people imagine.

The part that assumes limiting the size of a pistol magazine to under 33 rounds is an infringement of your 2nd amendment rights. Not every burden or restriction on gun ownership is a constitutional violation. If that were true, guns would be free and handed out on every street corner.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Again, you know nothing about firearms. Magazines are essential components of firearms. Once you restrict them, you are restricting firearms.

Crr6, evertime you post you make it more clear you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to firearms or self defense with them.

Earlier in the thread I mentioned how people defending their homes with handguns have 30 round magazines. You immediately come to the absurd conclusion that no one will need to fire 30 shots. Again, you don’t know what you are talking about. You haven’t a clue what it takes to survive a lethal force encounter.
If your home is invaded by multiple attackers you would want all the ammo you could bring to bear. If you are attacked by multiple thugs on the street the same thing applies.
You want to restrict the choices of the law abiding because of the mentally ill. That reflects very poorly upon you.

Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 33 consecutive shots with your pistol? If so, would you mind listing a few?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

I’m really curious to hear your answer to this question, Madcon. After all, your whole argument is centered on the idea that this law would violate, or at least restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens. It’d be helpful if you (and others) stopped saying things like this, too:

Typical shortsighted liberal with zero knowledge of firearms.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:40 PM

You talk about assuming too much, but if anyone’s guilty of that it’s you (and darwin, and Kinley…).

How is it “restricting the right of law-abiding citizens” to purchase firearms, if the size of pistol magazines allows you to squeeze off 16 shots rather than 33? Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 33 consecutive shots with your pistol? If so, would you mind listing a few?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Would you kindly read, and attempt to absorb, the knowledge being ladled out to you?

The information is there for the taking, if only you’ll drop the liberal mind-wall and let some of it in. Sheesh.

Come out to a gun range in the Midwest and watch how fast shooters out here can reload their 1911s or Glocks. A man with a cool head and focus can throw down three ten-round clips in ten seconds and not miss a beat.

If you think “NOW’S MY CHANCE” when you see the magazine drop, you’re already dead, because you just made yourself the next target. An admirable thing to do, but you won’t be stopping a dedicated and skilled shooter by bullcharging him in the one-second-window where he’s swapping mags.

What drove this story? What made this such a vital issue all of a sudden? I mean besides the utterly contemptible and dishonest hacks/propagandists posing as “newsies” and analysts? The fact that a Congressperson was almost killed.

Oh, sure, a young child and a Federal judge were killed too (along with a bunch of other people barely recognized who also lost their lives or were injured), but it was the attack on a Legislator that made it spectacularly important.

Guess what? That took one shot. From what I think is known, it was the first. There is no way one could have stopped Loughner from his assassination attempt even if he had a mythical one-shooter. Would appropriating all guns have been a reasonable solution to prevent premeditated murder with a firearm? I mean besides to those who would readily violate the Constitution? Obviously not and for countless reasons.

To say that clip size mattered in this whole brouhaha is to be a fool. That limitation would not have prevented the assassination attempt. The issue would not have been “important” were it not for the fact that a Legislator was a victim. The crisis was manufactured because a protected institution that has moved further Left sought to malign a grassroots voting bloc that has gained traction and power – and is a direct threat to that Left that would gladly repeal individual freedoms as long as it isn’t theirs.

Killers will kill. Politicians will politic. The press will propagandize. Those will always be. However, it is infinitely more dangerous to restrict the freedoms of the hundreds of millions of generally law-abiding citizens for “the sake of the children” or for the sake of other citizens called Legislators just because a narrative can be presented.

Can you think of many lawful reasons for needing to take 33 consecutive shots with your pistol? If so, would you mind listing a few?

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

I’m really curious to hear your answer to this question, Madcon.

Once again, the liberal mindset: Justify your rights to me, or I will take them away.

Here’s a good reason: there’s an intruder in your home and you missed the first 32 times. Here’s another: there’s multiple intruders in your home and you’d freeze up if you had to reload. Here’s another: you like shooting 33 consecutive rounds at the gun range. Here’s another: because 34-round magazines haven’t been invented yet.

Meanwhile, you cannot demonstrate in any way, shape, or form, that a person determined to go on a shooting spree will be deterred or hindered by the outlawing of 33-round magazines, since he isn’t going to be obeying the law, and the law will not make 33-round magazines disappear.

I’m really curious to hear your answer to this question, Madcon. After all, your whole argument is centered on the idea that this law would violate, or at least restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens. It’d be helpful if you (and others) stopped saying things like this, too:

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:46 PM

See my post at the top.

In the Miami FBI shootout, it took 6 shots to take down Matix and 12 rounds to kill Platt. Police accuracy is ~20% nationwide. You do the math.

I doubt the killing power of a .223 very much. But that’s another discussion.

This is one of the problems. When people talk firearms, they often speak in generalities – either from their own limited personal experience, from what they see on TV or in movies, or their complete lack of experience on the subject which leads to the spouting of talking points.

When and if one is going to talk firearms, specifics matter – not generalities.

1) Magazine is the correct terminology. A clip is something entirely different.

2) The only noticeable effect of the prior law banning manufacture of hi-cap mags (over ten rounds) was to inflate the cost of the hi-cap mags already on the market. As in skyrocket the cost. An outright ban on hi-cap mags would be impossible to enforce. There are already millions of them in circulation, and they are easily manufactured. All a ban would do would be to create a black market in h-cap mags.

Personally, I prefer the old Colt 1911 with an 8-round single-stack (one row) magazine. The grip fits my hand better than the wide-grips on pistols designed for hi-cap double-stack mags, and the narrower profile pistol is much easier to carry concealed. But that’s just me, and I don’t live in a high threat environment, and no longer do work that requires me to enter them.

3) The best size handgun for self-defense depends on your abilities and your circumstances. If you can’t handle the recoil of a bigger cartridge, use a smaller one.

Better to hit a threat 1 time with a .22 than to miss 3 times with a .357.

Likewise, if you can’t practice regularly, a revolver is probably a better fit than a semi-auto because it is simpler to use.

But as I pointed out, it doesn’t necessarily follow that you’re restricting the constitutional right to gun ownership.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Are you intentionally being dense? Magazines are to firearms as tires are to cars: restricting one is restricting the other. Jesus Christ, LEARN SOMETHING about firearms before you start talking about them again.

So is a steak knife. Doesn’t mean it’s an effective choice of carry weapon for self-defense.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:43 PM

At close range, it may be prefered to be hit with a high caliber, high velocity round that will go clean through. All of the tumbling and misdirection increases the area affected thus increasing the likelyhood of hitting vital organs.

I understand this to be an argument that does stand to reason, if true, of course. Admittedly, my knowledge of such is lacking so take it as a possibility and not a claim.

How many Congressmen get whacked every year with a gun? Almost zero over the last 20 years, yet we need to have knee jerk submission of new laws? That’s crazy. Why act crazy like our shooter?

The shooter is nuts, was on the streets when police knew he was nuts. Fixing that should be the first order of business.

By the way, don’t obsess over semi-auto pistols. A revolver can do almost the same damage with a few speed loaders in use. A trained shooter can reload any revolver in 3 seconds, maybe less with speed’os.

This is all shoulda-woulda-coulda based on limited guesswork and not a small amount of complete ignorance of how quick and dirty combat works.

phelps on January 19, 2011 at 1:38 PM

I suspect an on duty LE officer with a baton at the ready could have stopped the original shot to the congresswoman quicker than he could have drawn and fired his weapon. Of course that theory goes out the window if the shooter is further away, but lots of stray rounds flying through the crowd, well intentioned or not, make me cringe. Each situation is different and Monday morning quarterbacking is usually 100%.

And notice our beloved leaders have to help/nudge us into making the right choices…….or in this case, eliminate the choice. Cheney admits (as does the article) that it wasn’t the deciding factor but he can’t resist himself to advocate more Gov’t involvement and rules.

Next up limiting food choices because we’re not smart enough to make the right healthy decisions for ourselves.

Meanwhile, you cannot demonstrate in any way, shape, or form, that a person determined to go on a shooting spree will be deterred or hindered by the outlawing of 33-round magazines, since he isn’t going to be obeying the law, and the law will not make 33-round magazines disappear.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:50 PM

What would have stopped this Leftist Lunatic from taking two or three guns to shoot the place up?

What would have stopped this Leftist Lunatic from ramming an SUV into the crowd?

The question is, do you support the constitution or not. If you do then a high capacity ban is unconstitutional. Period.

If you think they should be banned, then the proper and ONLY method of doing so it is pass a constitutional amendment to reflect that.

This is the problem we have, We allow the constitution to be mis-interpreted because what ever law or policy is supported by most people, that methodogy has giving birth to the massive federal government we have today.

The only solution to that is to support the constitution 100%, even if the constitution says something, or prevents something you think should or should not be done. THAT IS WHAT AMENDMENTS ARE FOR.

Here’s a good reason: there’s an intruder in your home and you missed the first 32 times. Here’s another: there’s multiple intruders in your home and you’d freeze up if you had to reload. Here’s another: you like shooting 33 consecutive rounds at the gun range. Here’s another: because 34-round magazines haven’t been invented yet.

…yeah. Well I think we both know that was pretty weak. I actually lol’d at the first and second examples.

Meanwhile, you cannot demonstrate in any way, shape, or form, that a person determined to go on a shooting spree will be deterred or hindered by the outlawing of 33-round magazines, since he isn’t going to be obeying the law, and the law will not make 33-round magazines disappear.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2011 at 1:50 PM

I don’t think I (or most thinking-people) would buy the argument that restricting lawful access to a good has absolutely no effect on the ability of people to obtain that good because they’d find a way if they really wanted it. It’s similar to the argument that restricting the ease with which people can commit suicide, has no effect on the suicide rate.

That’s actually not true. A cantaloupe or any other melon does not equate the actual terminal ballistics on human flesh.

Ballistic gel is better, though not as good as pork/pig. As far as the human skull goes, the target needs to equate the density and thickness of the skull with tissue. A melon rind is not nearly as dense as the human cranium.

…yeah. Well I think we both know that was pretty weak. I actually lol’d at the first and second examples.

crr6 on January 19, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Of course you did, because the concept of defending yourself is something you’re too sheltered to ever actually think about. Enjoy waiting on your phone for five minutes while you beg the police to arrive sooner as the burglar/rapist comes down the hallway. Hope you don’t end up like these girls.